shmenguin wrote:my priority would be making pads smaller. if that's too difficult to change/enforce, the net should be bigger.

so what exactly is the challenge with the pads? is it getting companies to manufacture new equipment? is it too impractical to enforce it down through all levels of hockey, where the cost becomes prohibitive? or is it just too difficult to enforce?

if the official story is that last one, i don't buy it.

What I infer as I said above is that it's an issue they like to talk about but no one really wants to get in a battle over. The NHLPA will advocate for the players and the NHL will not be that into changing the rule because at the end of the day they're still making money hand over fist. It's a talking point, not an action point in my opinion.

shmenguin wrote:Baseball was never more entertaining in my lifetime than during the steroid era.

True story. The whole homerun race that dominated not just the sports pages but the FRONT PAGES of newspapers everywhere was the best time baseball has ever had. It was never more popular.

Valid point but getting to that level (not just more home runs and runs but something that historic) isn't likely. The home run record is/was something beyond other records in history. The other runs increase brought up some level of interest for sure, not sure how much but it did at least marginally.

I think the issues with the NHL are actually very minimal and they need to quit tripping over themselves and bring back common sense. Hockey is a beautiful game to watch, so much skill, smarts and toughness at a pace that keeps going: you dont only get what 5 minutes of actual action (mlb), you don't get to huddle up every play and have coaches chat with you via a mic (nfl), you don't get timeouts all game and run only set plays (nba), more chances are turned away than put in the goal which makes each goal so much sweeter. Momentum actually exists and role players actually matter. It's the best sport period.

- simply call open hands and stick work.

- make the pads a bit smaller

- fix instigator and fighting. Outlaw fighting or get rid of the instigator and sending a message rule. The league wants it both ways. So dumb and such an NHL thing to do. It's been proven in other leagues (or Olympics) if you ban fighting and actually call the stupid crap they don't do it. If you want to keep fighting then don't pretend to be all noble with stupid rules. I have seen players say they need to police the game, but there are a hundred cameras out there. A few real suspensions and maybe we don't have a shoving match at every stoppage.

- the BADS not sure what to do here thought: red line. By nixing the 2 line pass combined with at least marginally calling clutching its made it a free for all on open ice hits. Reminds me of the NFL "hey CB's and Safety's you can not touch after a few yards but also be nice when you have no choice but to come up and drill the helpless WR.......ON EVERY PASS PLAY". If memory serves me correctly there was plenty of scoring with a red line. Not sure that was the issue.

I could be wrong but if they just call the rules the way they are written, made a decision on fighting and pads brought down a shade not sure any of this matters. As far as OT and points. Who knows, currently the shoot out is fun and so is OT so I'm cool. Sure it helps teams that play for a point in regulation but whatever I'm fine with it as is.

Getting rid of the 2 line pass was an unmitigated success. Open ice hits aren't the issue - particularly ones that come off of stretch passes.

With the OT, the only thing I hated in the article was the idea that you could lose in a shoot out and then be awarded zero points. That's looney tunes. I don't think there's a pressing need to adjust OT, but if they were to do anything, i'd want it to incorporate a 3 on 3 element.

shmenguin wrote:Getting rid of the 2 line pass was an unmitigated success. Open ice hits aren't the issue - particularly ones that come off of stretch passes.

With the OT, the only thing I hated in the article was the idea that you could lose in a shoot out and then be awarded zero points. That's looney tunes. I don't think there's a pressing need to adjust OT, but if they were to do anything, i'd want it to incorporate a 3 on 3 element.

I guess my point is the red line was not the issue at all. The problem is when comparing the NHL to other sports its backwards. The NFL / MLB and its original rules made it less offense happy. They adjusted over the years with things like mound height or the 5 yard chuck rule to keep opening up the game.

In the NHL the offense was actually fine for years, and they officiated it out of the game, which was a huge part of the problem. Sure, things like goalie pad size do not help. I agree. But its more equivalent to the NHL having a 5 yard chuck rule from the beginning and simply never calling it. So now they are continuing to make rule adjustments when in my eyes its simple. Call the rules as they are written.

Sometimes in sports every change has a reaction to how the sport is played. There have been complaints on various rule changes (like the goalie playing the puck rule) that in turn cause a defenseman to take a beating (not sure how accurate that is but its just an example).

Just think the NHL was better off in the offense category compared to other sports that felt the need to make changes and the issue was the NHL itself not the game, unlike the NFL or MLB who probably needed some tweaks.

I don't have a problem with the current OT/SO format, but I wouldn't hate going to a 3 point system where regulation wins are worth 3 points. It makes sense to me that every game should be worth the same number of overall points and this would definitely encourage teams to not just play for OT or SO. I wouldn't even entirely be against going back to awarding no points for an OT loss... so a reg/OT win is worth 3 points, SO is worth 2/1. Something like that. Given that OT is played 4 on 4 though, it's a little tougher to justify not giving the loser point or whatever.

Drastic rule changes, or anything that is put at the referee's discretion will be pointless. If they already pick and choose how they enforce certain rules, adding more won't make the game any better... we'll just see more of the crap where they'll ignore someone being hooked and held up and down the ice, but the instant the stick touches their hands, penalty!

- The loser point: It looks sillier now with the stupid shootout thing we have. It's a shame the players won't allow a 10-minute OT. Fine with a system where all games are worth the same in aggregate points pretty much. I'd like to see a team get a point for making it to the shootout, because they didn't lose a hockey game. So I guess that leaves me at 3-2-1-0.

- Puck over the glass (unless 100% obviously intentional) should be penalized like an icing, that works for me.

- I don't care to see any changes made to icing, personally. But I'm in the minority I guess anymore...

- I'd be fine if dives were reviewed. It's tough to call a dive in live speed, it really is. Even at lower levels that I've reffed, it can be tough. Review them, fine them, suspend them, whatever you want...

- I don't care if you increase offense (not the problem), just increase the quality of the product. Sometimes offense is a byproduct of that, sometimes it's not. Goals =/= excitement in any sort of 1:1 ratio.

- Bigger nets is horrible, of course, because they've been this way for 100 years and nothing much has changed. Fine, the average player is a couple inches taller, that's nice. The problem is the goalie pads (they have changed, quite dramatically might I add), that's obvious to everyone. Start weeding it out or it will never go away. Look at how bad most Canadian goalies are today...they've done it to themselves. They were borrowing talent on margin and the bubble has burst.

- I don't care for any changes to the draft as tanking is not an issue in the league, period. 1983 and 1992, notwithstanding, the league just hasn't had a problem with it. Why inhibit a legitimately rebuilding team from infusing youth into their lineup and letting it get experience in exchange for this fabled stance of "they finished last they must be losing on purpose..." ...does anyone realize that beyond the emotions of the whole thing, multi-million dollar jobs are on the line? People need to get over the fact that one team has to finish last. Not pictured: draft picks are chances in and of themselves. They aren't worth their weight in gold.

- You get a stride to finish your check on a player, more than that is a penalty. Fine. I don't know what they're talking about in the article. You get a stride, that's all.

- Obviously we don't need this many outdoor games, the novelty has quickly worn off.

I agree with all the above. I do agree with the suggested change of increasing OT to 10 minutes, and would be fine with going from 4x4 to 3x3 after the first 5 minutes.

As for being able to finish your checks, I agree that the rule doesn't need to be changed, but the refs hardly ever call a penalty when more than one stride is taken unless someone gets hurt or another penalty (headshot, elbow, etc) is called. Like all rules, I wish the refs would actually call them as written consistently.

These I disagree with you:

mikey287 wrote:- No reason to change the Cup presentation

- Lose the instigator, let the players handle things that players need to handle. You let these rats in the league get their **** pounded in once in a while and they'll start to clean up their act a little. Aren't they penalizing now for removing helmets in a fight or some such? So now they're forcing visors on you and making you keep your helmet on for fighting? I'm not sure if I'm remembering that right, but if so, that's total bunk...I'm not even a fan of fighting, I've changed the channel when a fight has come on before, but it definitely has a place in the game. It's part of the fabric of the game.

- The NHL already has rules on jersey re-designing/re-branding. Home teams wear home team colors, not white. White is what you wear on the road.

For cup presentation, I'm not a fan of having the first thing associated with the delivery of the Stanley Cup being boos. Bettman doesn't need to present it. Have someone like Gretzky, Messier, Howe, etc present it instead.

I'd keep the instigator because it prevents the other team's goon from going after Sid or Geno or someother skill player whenever a fight or scrum breaks out. If you take out the instigator you are going to get bench clearing brawls again, and more of the goon show that we saw on Long Island a couple seasons ago. No thanks. If the refs actually call the penalties as written, there is no need for the players to police themselves.

I think the NHL should have a rule that jersey/logo changes can only be done every 5 years and put a limit to only one third jersey. It brings some consistency and prevents teams from having so many jerseys. I also wouldn't mind going back to wearing white at home as it allows the home team fans to see the away teams more vibrant jerseys, but I really don't care too much either way on that point.

i don't really care that it's bettman who presents the cup - and is predictably booed every time. but if we're going to change that...how about having a former (presumably beloved) player from the cup winner hand it over?

shmenguin wrote:i don't really care that it's bettman who presents the cup - and is predictably booed every time. but if we're going to change that...how about having a former (presumably beloved) player from the cup winner hand it over?

shmenguin wrote:i don't really care that it's bettman who presents the cup - and is predictably booed every time. but if we're going to change that...how about having a former (presumably beloved) player from the cup winner hand it over?

I can just imagine the hilarious possibility of a player of another team passing the cup off, oh my god.

shmenguin wrote:i don't really care that it's bettman who presents the cup - and is predictably booed every time. but if we're going to change that...how about having a former (presumably beloved) player from the cup winner hand it over?

shmenguin wrote:i don't really care that it's bettman who presents the cup - and is predictably booed every time. but if we're going to change that...how about having a former (presumably beloved) player from the cup winner hand it over?

shmenguin wrote:i don't really care that it's bettman who presents the cup - and is predictably booed every time. but if we're going to change that...how about having a former (presumably beloved) player from the cup winner hand it over?

The captain from the losing team should have to hand it over.

Captain from the previous Stanley Cup winner should hand it over.

What-if a team repeats?? :head explodes:

Then I guess Bettman or a figurehead presents the award.

Personally, I find the hate on Bettman to be ridiculous since under his watch the NHL has mostly thrived. Sure there were 2 lockouts and he lost a season. But the overall structure of the financial side of the game allows for a better on ice product. Plus, his TV deals have turned out pretty good. He saw long term success in a channel we all scoffed at that has now turned into a pretty hockey central station. Couple that with the NHL Network and I would say hockey is in a fantastic place.